Ukraine Parliament Repeals Anti-Protest Laws As Prime Minister Falls On President's Sword
from the fighting-against-the-tide dept
A while back, we discussed the uprising and protests in Ukraine, along with the almost sadistically Orwellian threats utilized by the government there to attempt to stifle protests. Those efforts, combined with hamfisted legislation rammed through the Ukrainian parliament via the laughable hand-count voting technique, achieved the opposite of their intention and lit a fire under the protesters. We made the argument then that, in this age of technology, ruling with such an iron fist couldn't and wouldn't work, and that the Ukrianian government was ignoring the lessons governments in the Middle East were forced to learn mere years ago.
It turns out not only were we correct, but we were to be proven as much with somewhat shocking speed. The most recent news out of Ukraine is that the parliament has voted to repeal those laws against protests with a near-consensus.
In a first step, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to repeal sweeping anti-protest laws whose passage this month angered anti-government demonstrators. The special parliamentary session is now looking at legislation that might provide amnesty for more than 200 people arrested since the demonstrations began in late November.This
Unfortunately, Yanukovych appears to lack the gumption to fall on his own sword, so he's let someone else leap onto it instead.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych accepted the resignation of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov and his government Tuesday, amid a political crisis fired by violent protests on the country's streets. Azarov and his Cabinet will continue in their roles until a new government is formed, a notice on the presidential website said.This, I fear, won't be enough to send the protesters back to their homes. A new government with the same President is only "new" as a method for parody and derision. An attempt to turn on the free speech of a people isn't going to be forgiven in exchange for lesser resignations.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: free speech, mykola azarov, protests, ukraine, viktor yanukovych
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On the other hand, Ukrainian opposition does not seems to be benign too. It already had a go at power during previous term and it wasn't a raging success either.
Present situation seems to me very much like a failed Russian political operation vs. successful American one, but neither has much good in store for the country. If Ukraine is to join EU in near future, it will do so with a failed economy (which is mostly eastern-oriented and could not become competitive in time) and mostly as another source of emigrants. And of course, if Russian operation somehow would turn things around (which doesn't seems possible; Russians haven't another horse in this race, but Yanukovich, and he's already politically dead), it will probably just put another easily-controlled man in charge (and the most easily controlled men are those who are already corrupted).
And of course, Russia simply could not leave Ukraine alone, if only because of fleet base in Crimea, so the country will probably continue to be pulled apart by powerful forces.
What this country needs, is, probably, a smart and wily leader, who could manoeuvre between Russia and the West, angering neither, but not committing too heavily to anyone. It is not likely to get one suddenly, though...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In the US, its closer to dictatorship as he has absolute power over everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The russians were controlling the government and had a lot of shady deals. Saying that the US is the sole power in these protests is just stupid.
You know what would be great? If the US would stop fucking around in other countries so we could finally have some peace.
I mean giving chemical weapons to terrorists is certainly not a good way...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The question is, will Opposition's victory end it, or just redirect it to other pockets? Yushenko's term seems to suggest the later. So I pity the country whoever wins. I've been to Kiev and I liked it very much, and I would hate for things to become worse for Ukraine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LMAO in feudal Japan this would be akin to a samurai committing sepukku (suicide to "pay" for dishonor or something like) by cutting somebody else's bowels.
His best move would be to call for new elections and resign (ethically and morally speaking). Politically he probably did the least damning thing he could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 29th, 2014 @ 12:11am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yanukovych is far too weak as a president for Russias taste and far too corrupt for EUs taste. It is rumoured (I am a bit embarrassed by using this FOX news wording!) that these deals are made in an attempt to get him out of the inevitable post-election corruption case. If that is true and the opposition will let him get sufficiently off the hook, there is a fine chance that they can reach a deal on a soonish new presidential election/resignation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> taste and far too corrupt for EUs taste.
Yeah, let's be fair... He's not TOO corrupt for EU, he's just corrupted by the wrong people. Were he in pay of the likes of Hollywood and Big Pharma, EU would be totally OK with it most of the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I Can Geometries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Can Geometries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You were saying...?
There are limits on executive orders, etc. so no, he's not a dictator.
http://answers.usa.gov/system/templates/selfservice/USAGov/#!portal/1012/article/4436/Presidential-E xecutive-Orders
There are limits on executive orders and he doesn't exactly have the absolute power a dictator requires to operate. If he did, he wouldn't face as much opposition as he does - he'd simply get rid of them. But he can't - they're still here, aren't they? Spreading conspiracy theories pretending he's not even American, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I Can Geometries?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gee our government already figured that out
U S A … U S A … N S A … N S wait where are you taking meeee
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nice in theory but that's not how they're being used under the current administration. Just in the past few months they've been used to change Congressionally passed law to something that better suits the administration re: Obamacare, changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the province of Congress, creating succession orders for several departments of government, changing pay rates all over the place, etc...
Have a look at the rest with an eye for "Does this power belong in the executive?"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders
It's nice that we theoretically have limits on executive orders. It's not as nice to see them eroded and outright ignored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh? What laws have been changed through executive orders? I can't find a single example of this. Perhaps you can provide some support for this assertion?
Executive orders are orders to the rest of the executive branch about how they are to go about the business of running things. They cannot negate, or create law, and I've not seen one from Obama (or anyone else) that does this.
What they can do is alter the impact of laws. This is legitimate and is part of the whole adversarial system of our government.
Obamacare was not enacted through an EO. It is law passed by congress. The changes to the UCMJ that I could find were all laws passed by congress, not EO. Changing succession orders within governmental departments can be a completely legitimate use of EOs, assuming that the departments are all in the executive branch and succession is not defined by the Constitution. Changing pay rates for executive branch employees is a totally legitimate use of EOs.
It is a long, long tradition for opponents (regardless of party) to claim that using EOs is an abuse of power, but actual examples of abuse are rare. For the record, Obama's use of EOs is on the low side of average.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://exposethemedia.com/2014/01/16/dictator-obama-delays-another-obamacare-deadline/
He's taken passed law and rewritten/ignored it more than than once recently just in regards to legal deadlines for Obamacare.
And, no, changing governmental spending is always a congressional prerogative. So much so that any bill doing so has to specifically originate in the House.
The number of EOs doesn't matter, the number of abuses does. Is Obama that much worse than Bush/etc...? Not really. Does that make it okay? Hell no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The link you provided doesn't support this assertion. Can you show me the law he rewrote or ignored? As near as I can tell, actual dates of implementation were not in the law itself.
Setting the budget is the congress' responsibility. Obama didn't change the budget. He altered the spending within the confines of the budget Congress approved -- he's shifting dollars within the same budgetary category. That's totally legitimate.
Not true. Congress must approve spending changes in the areas that are congressional responsibility. Obama didn't change any of those -- he's doing spending changes within the executive branch itself, which is squarely within his Constitutional responsibilities.
True, but as of yet I haven't heard a single example of such abuse of EOs. Is Obama being aggressive in his use of EOs? Without question! But please show me one where he's exceeded his Constitutional authority.
(By the way, I'm not an Obama fan at all. But I am a fan of keeping criticism accurate.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Subtitle B, Section 1101, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, paragraph a. He had no legal authority to extend that January 1 deadline but did, first to January 31 and then to March 15.
Spending bills and the budget are similar but not the same thing. Some things Congress just slaps a big wad of fungible money in the executive's hands and some it spells out specifically where the money has to go. Regardless, we would both have to read both to find out for certain which of us is correct. I don't know about you, but reading a large chunk of Obamacare was plenty for me for the day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiCF1QdyxhM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]